A CONTESTED POLICY: IRISH AND AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES ON EIRE'S NEUTRALITY

Transcription

1 Clemson University TigerPrints All Theses Theses A CONTESTED POLICY: IRISH AND AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES ON EIRE'S NEUTRALITY Leah Egofske Clemson University, legofsk@g.clemson.edu Follow this and additional works at: Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Egofske, Leah, "A CONTESTED POLICY: IRISH AND AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES ON EIRE'S NEUTRALITY" (2013). All Theses. Paper This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact awesole@clemson.edu.

2 A CONTESTED POLICY: IRISH AND AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES ON EIRE S NEUTRALITY A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Masters of Arts History by Leah Susan Egofske May 2013 Accepted by: Dr. Michael Silvestri, Committee Chair Dr. Stephanie Barczewski Dr. Paul Christopher Anderson

3 ABSTRACT Although the Irish Free State had close relations and connections to the United Kingdom from its inception in 1922, Eire pursued a policy of neutrality throughout the Second World War. Although the majority of the Irish population supported neutrality, it attracted much criticism in Britain and America. The aim of this study is to explore Irish men and women s experience with neutrality alongside how American newspapers as well as American war correspondents based in Britain addressed and viewed Ireland s neutrality. In many ways, the Irish benefited from the policy of neutrality and the small nation was united on a level it never had been before. However, war correspondents coming from the warzone of Britain and visiting peaceful Ireland were highly critical of neutrality, viewing the Irish as standing by while the British fought for their freedom. Comparatively, American newspapers gave a more objective view of Eire, but their coverage turned much more critical once the United States entered the war. Ultimately, this examination will enrich the historiography on Ireland and the Second World War by illuminating the development of these varying perspectives on Irish neutrality and how they evolved. ii

4 DEDICATION To my mother and father, Ruth and Dave Egofske, for always supporting and encouraging me to do what I enjoy. iii

5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my committee for making this thesis possible. The guidance from my committee chair, Dr. Michael Silvestri, was essential in helping me find and develop a thesis topic in which I could truly enjoy researching and exploring. I am especially grateful for the invaluable source material he led me to throughout my research along with his extremely helpful and encouraging feedback as my work progressed. Secondly, I would like to thank Dr. Paul Anderson, who, as an advisor and as a professor was always there to answer any questions and help me improve as a writer and as a student of history. I am grateful to Dr. Stephanie Barczewski, whose historiography course furthered my understanding of the profession while also allowing me to investigate the historical scholarship on neutral Ireland. As a whole, the Clemson University History Department provided me the perfect environment to enrich my historical education. I must also thank my friends and family, who have been there for me throughout my graduate studies. Thank you, Grandma Seattle and Grandpa Kelly for supporting my academic career and instilling in me the benefits of a good work ethnic, for, nobody ever died from a lack of sleep. I am forever grateful for the love and support from my parents, and my sisters, Anna and Kayla. Without you, who knows where the little bean would be. I am also thankful for my friends, Chasidy and Shane, for giving me balance and allowing me to enjoy the Clemson experience to the fullest extent. iv

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE PAGE... i ABSTRACT... ii DEDICATION... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS... iv INTRODUCTION...1 CHAPTERS I. UNNEUTRAL NEUTRAL EIRE: THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF EIRE AND THE EMERGENCY...8 II. IN AND OUT OF THE WAR: THE IRISH PERSPECTIVE ON WORLD WAR II...33 III. THE IRRATIONALITY OF IRISH NEUTRALITY: AMERICAN WAR CORRESPONDENTS AND EIRE...54 IV. SYMPATHETIC TO NONSENSICAL: HOW U.S. NEWSPAPERS COVERED IRISH NEUTRALITY...79 CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY v

7 INTRODUCTION Well the Irish in Belfast are just as Irish as they are in Dublin, and no matter what you may think of them you have to admit they are interesting. They nearly drive you nuts scrapping and brawling in the middle of this gigantic world war - Ben Robertson, July 3, After Hitler s invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, the United Kingdom declared war on Germany. All of the nations in the British Commonwealth followed suit; that is, all save the Irish Free State. Instead of belligerency, Eire experienced the Emergency under Taoiseach Eamon de Valera from September 1939 until September Shortly after Britain s declaration of war on Germany, de Valera along with the Irish Parliament, Dail Eireann, passed the Emergency Powers Act, which stipulated the course of neutrality that Ireland would pursue while giving the Irish government the authority to implement that policy. Throughout the entire war, this policy of neutrality would be protested and critiqued. It was ridiculed on many occasions by the British government and press along with many Americans who lived and experienced the war from Great Britain, such as U.S. war correspondents. As the war progressed an increasing number of Americans grew more critical of Eire s neutral stance, especially after the United States entered the war in December of 1941, and this was reflected in American press coverage. Those who chastised Irish neutrality did so for a number of reasons; most important being that Ireland s fate was directly related to Great Britain s. If the British 1 Ben Robertson, Cable from Belfast to New York, July 3, 1941, Mss. 77 Ben Robertson Papers, Clemson University Special Collections Library. Referred to hereafter as Ben Robertson Papers.

8 fell to Nazi Germany, then Ireland would easily be overtaken as well. The British along with American war correspondents saw Irish neutrality as selfish. In this view, the British were sacrificing themselves and their nation for the cause of western civilization, while Eire remained neutral. In addition, the Irish were portrayed as unhelpful on many occasions the largest being the issue over Irish ports. In 1938 Great Britain relinquished military control over three Irish seaports: Cobh, Berehaven and Lough Swilly. They did so anticipating closer relations and potential use of these bases in the event of warfare. However, the Irish did not allow the British military to use these ports during the Second World War because that would have violated their position of neutrality. British as well as American press coverage dwelled on this issue of Irish ports, presenting it as detrimental to the British war effort. Not only were American war correspondents and newspapers critical of Irish neutrality because of issues such as the ports, but also because it did not make sense to them while looking at the larger picture the Second World War. The Irish government and Irish people had deep connections with Great Britain, both physically and emotionally whether with the United Kingdom as their largest trading partner or with the extremely large Irish minority living and working in Britain. Yet, as opponents of Irish neutrality saw it, Ireland continued to allow the British to stand alone against the horrific threats posed by Nazi Germany. Many Americans ridiculed Ireland s neutrality in the early part of the war, but the United States also pursued a policy of neutrality until the attack on Pearl Harbor. Although this seems hypocritical, American war correspondents who reported on Ireland saw the Irish experience during the war in comparison with what they witnessed in Great 2

9 Britain. Irish neutrality utterly perplexed these foreign onlookers. The critiques these journalists gave Irish neutrality are seen sporadically in American newspapers before 1942 a large number of articles pertaining to the war were written by the very same correspondents but American press coverage additionally explained the contours of Irish neutrality from the Irish perspective. Major U.S. newspapers, such as the New York Times, covered Irish neutrality much more objectively until the United States entered and had a much larger stake in the war. These criticisms by American journalists and newspapers emphasized the selfish nature of Ireland s neutrality. They saw the Irish as siting out of a conflict which was going to determine their fate as much as Great Britain s. However, the press coverage also largely ignored the role that Ireland did play in the war. Tens of thousands of Irish men and women joined the British military, which the Irish government never inhibited throughout the war. Many aspects of Irish benevolence towards the Allies were unknown to these critics and would remain obscured for decades after the war, notably the Irish government s sharing of intelligence and information with the Allies. 2 From what these American reporters saw, it is not difficult to understand why they would be perplexed and frustrated by Ireland s neutrality. Yet, in the face of all this criticism regarding their neutrality, for Ireland, it was the most logical position to take throughout the Second World War. Politically, neutrality was supported by the majority of the nation a policy that united factions from both sides of the Irish Civil War, which was fought less than two decades before World War II. The 2 Eunan O Halpin, Spying on Ireland: British Intelligence and Irish Neutrality the Second World War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). 3

10 Irish could not and would not ally with Great Britain. The Irish saw the British as century-old enemies from whom they only gained independence in When looking back upon British rule, they saw the British as callous oppressors. From the potato famine along with inequalities such as the Penal laws of the 18 th century to the ruthlessness of the Black and Tans during the War of Independence, the Irish saw a consistent struggle against the unjust British rule. If they allied with the United Kingdom, it would only create discontent within Irish society, whose historical memory of British aggression would rebel against supporting a British war effort. Not only that, but in remaining neutral the newly independent Irish state was able to assert sovereignty over their own nation while also refusing to accept what they saw as the unjust Partition of Ireland (having the six counties of Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom). Beyond these political calculations, neutrality meant that Ireland was able to avoid the devastating impacts of the Second World War. Ireland did not have its cities blitzed and tens of thousands of its civilians killed and injured compared to the United Kingdom. Instead, Ireland and her people felt the less drastic side effects of the war. There was rationing throughout Ireland, which hurt the poorest sections of Irish society, but life went on. People enjoyed the bars, dances, plays, and cultural scene that Irish society had to offer largely because the war inhibited the Irish people from leaving their tiny little world on the edge of major conflict. 3 It was very difficult to leave Ireland during this time. The Irish were touched by the war in other ways as well. Victims from the Battles of the Atlantic would wash up on Eire s shores, pilots would crash land 3 Ben Robertson, I Saw England (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1941),

11 throughout the country, and occasionally, bombs were accidently dropped on Eire. Although the Irish felt some impacts of the war, one can see the benefits of remaining neutral while the rest of Europe engaged in a devastating world war. The critics, such as American war correspondents, saw these benefits that the Irish had by remaining neutral and it led them to further criticize and despise the Irish position of neutrality. They came to Ireland from Great Britain and saw the bright lights of Dublin not under blackout, unrationed foods, such as butter and eggs, the obliviousness that the Irish displayed towards the war. In spite of being told the rationale behind Irish neutrality, they could not comprehend how and why the Irish did not see the larger picture: that their whole world was at stake while they remained at peace. These critics, for right or for wrong, did not and would not see eye-to-eye with the Irish perspective. It was not difficult for contemporaries to see that Ireland s well-being was directly related to the British, yet at the same time, it also is not surprising that a large majority of Irish men and women supported neutrality. Therefore, the aim of the following chapters is to closely examine these differing perspectives on Irish neutrality. First, to understand, why the Irish, even some who physically and emotionally backed the British war effort, could also support such a policy of neutrality. The second goal is to analyze how American reporters and newspapers grappled with understanding and then explaining Irish neutrality, a political position that seemed to them preposterous at times. Chapter I explores the historiography of neutral Ireland, which has only blossomed in the past thirty years showing how the historical understanding of Ireland s experience with the war has evolved from a purely political analysis on Irish 5

12 neutrality to an examination of the cultural and social impacts that the war had on the Irish people. In looking at the historiographical interpretations of Irish neutrality, one can further understand the ways in which the Irish government and people participated in and were affected by the Second World War. Historical scholarship on Eire highlights how and why neutrality worked throughout Ireland during the Second World War. Building on this historiography, Chapter II aims to broaden the understanding of the Irish perspective on neutrality by exploring first-hand accounts of Irish men and women with the war. This chapter highlights the benefits that neutrality had within Ireland, such as uniting this historically factious population under the common cause of neutrality. It also looks at several memoirs of the Irish who fought for the British armed forces in order to better understand how being from Ireland, a neutral nation, affected their experiences throughout the war. This memoir literature demonstrates the connections that Irish men and women had with one another while a part of the British military as well as displaying how these Irish combatants never ridiculed de Valera s neutral stance in their recollections. After delving into the Irish perspective, Chapter III studies some of the major critics of Irish neutrality: American war correspondents. This chapter, alongside the previous one, illuminates the stark differences on this issue throughout the Second World War. These Americans viewed the war as the British did, a fight for their livelihood, for freedom and democracy. In comparison, they visited Ireland and saw that the Irish people were whole-heartedly supportive of neutrality and, in instances, completely ignorant to their surroundings while the United Kingdom fought for both their lives. American war 6

13 correspondents reflected their concern for Great Britain and the British war effort. They saw the destruction in England, and were appalled by the lack of concern or help from across the Irish Sea. Whereas American war correspondents viewed Irish neutrality in comparison to their experiences in Great Britain and throughout the war, reflecting a British point of view, the coverage on Eire given by American newspapers is more reflective of the changing position of the United States towards the war. Chapter IV looks at how the U.S. coverage on Eire evolved as the position of the United States changed. It explores the major U.S. papers, such as the New York Times and Washington Post, highlighting that before Pearl Harbor many Americans, especially those of Irish decent, supported and understood Eire s neutrality, but after the United States entered the war, American papers no longer reflected the same understanding or support of Irish neutrality. By examining these differing vantage points this thesis illuminates how different perspectives on Irish neutrality evolved over the course of the war. 7

14 CHAPTER ONE UNNEUTRAL NEUTRAL EIRE: THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF EIRE AND THE EMERGENCY Although the Second World War was one of the most critical moments in modern European history, historical scholarship on Ireland s experience with neutrality during the war has, until recently, been relatively limited. Not until the late 1970s did historians begin to study World War II with a major focus on Ireland. The first of these studies concentrated on the political and diplomatic relations between Eire and the respective belligerents, with seminal works such as Robert Fisk s In Time of War: Ireland, Ulster and the Price of Neutrality (1983). 4 Over the years, scholarship expanded to include a wide range of topics regarding Ireland, her people, and the experiences of this nation on the edge of the global conflict. The significant impacts that warfare had on this tiny, neutral nation are evident from almost every perspective: Clair Wills That Neutral Island: A Cultural History of Ireland, which focuses on the cultural impacts of the war, to Eunan O Halpin s Spying on Ireland, which analyzes the British intelligence in Ireland during the war. 5 Several factors have influenced the expansion of this historiography over the past thirty years. Of key significance was the opening of archival material from the wartime 4 Robert Fisk, In Time of War: Ireland, Ulster and the Price of Neutrality, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1983). 5 Eunan O Halpin, Spying on Ireland: British Intelligence and Irish Neutrality During the Second World War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); Clair Wills, That Neutral Island: A Cultural History of Ireland during the Second World War (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2007). 8

15 years. The growing studies on Irish neutrality correspond with the growing availability of documents pertaining to British, Irish, and Northern Irish wartime policies, military operations, intelligence, and diplomatic interactions. For instance, Robert Fisk was able to complete In Time of War in 1982 by utilizing confidential wartime papers released for him by the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Office, while Eunan O Halpin was the first to take advantage of top-secret intelligence and military documents released by the British government in In addition to fresh sources, the emergence of this historiography coincided with the mainstreaming of Irish Revisionism. Revisionism was an attempt to view Ireland s past objectively, looking beyond strong religious, political, or nationalistic sentiments, which have skewed the historical memories of Ireland and her people, fueling tensions and violence throughout the 20 th century. Efforts to revise this historical understanding began in the 1930s, and the mission of revisionist histories was to cleanse the historical record of its mythological clutter by applying scientific methods to the evidence, separating fact from destructive and divisive fiction. 6 Yet it wasn t until the outbreak of the Troubles in Northern Ireland in the late 1960s that it became clear to many historians, that the Irish people needed liberation from the nationalist mythology. 7 Before the mainstreaming of Irish revisionism, nationalist perspectives that glorified Ireland s past leaders and struggles against brutal British rule dominated the 6 Nancy J. Curtin, Varieties of Irishness: Historical Revisionism, Irish Style, Journal of British Studies 35, no. 2 (April 1996), Ibid. 9

16 history and memory of the Irish nation. 8 Historians looked at Ireland s past in order to justify its struggle against Great Britain and Irish animosity towards partition and their former colonizer. Therefore, as the atrocities of the Second World War became clear, it was better for nationalist historians to ignore Ireland s neutral polices in their histories rather than to risk portraying the Irish nation in a negative light. It wasn t until Irish revisionism replaced the dominant nationalist approach to Irish history, that historians critically looked at Irish neutrality with both its positive and negative consequences. Despite their various foci and methodologies, every historian discussed here emphasizes Ireland s history and relationship to Great Britain. Before, during, and after the war, tens of thousands of Irish men and women lived and worked in Great Britain, and the British remained the largest and most vital trading partner to Eire. At the same time, the twenty-six counties of the Irish Free State gained independence from Britain only seventeen years before the outbreak of the Second World War, with a large portion of the Irish still embittered about centuries of British oppression and their control of Northern Ireland. Because of this strange relationship with Great Britain, in which Ireland was embittered yet dependent towards its more powerful neighbor and oppressor, the common consensus amongst historians is that neutrality was the most practical political policy for Ireland. 8 Roy Foster, History and the Irish Question, in Interpreting Irish History: The Debate on Historical Revisionism, comp. Ciaran Brady (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1994). 10

17 For some historians, Ireland s history with Britain and the issues over partition are at the core of Eire s neutral policies. 9 The memories of the Anglo-Irish war and Irish Civil war were still fresh in the minds of the population in 1939, and a majority of Irish society supported de Valera s policy to remain neutral. Historians also acknowledge that Ireland was not militarily equipped to fight in the war, and many, such as Donal O Drisceoil, note that neutrality was a part of asserting both Irish sovereignty and the rights of small nations. 10 Ireland remained neutral for many reasons, yet a unique characteristic of this neutrality which historians also emphasize was Irish benevolence towards the Allies. Irish men volunteered for the British military, British soldiers who crashed landed in Eire were not interned (unlike their German counterparts), and the Irish even relayed intelligence to the British. Another crucial element that continues to prevail in each historical account is the dispute over Irish ports. As stated in the introduction, Britain ceded control of several Irish ports (Berehaven, Lough Swilly, and Cobh) in 1938, but with the outbreak of war, the British saw the Irish ports as key to their success in the Battle of the Atlantic and thus to victory overall. 11 All of these historians would agree on these key characteristics of Irish neutrality, but they each have looked at Ireland during the Second World War through varying lenses, and have highlighted the multiplicity of consequences in Ireland s neutral stance. In general, the pattern of this historiography is 9 Fisk, In Time of War; Jerrold M. Packard, Neither Friend Nor Foe: The European Neutrals in World War II (New York: Scribner, 1992). 10 Donal O Drisceoil, Censorship in Ireland, : Neutrality, Politics, and Society (Cork: Cork UP, 1996), See page 2. 11

18 that it has expanded from a purely political historical approach to cultural or social interpretations. Robert Fisk s political study of neutral Eire opened the door to this historiography by exploring a topic that had previously been a largely unknown and comparatively unwritten chapter in the history of the Second World War. 12 Fisk s study is based on over 11,000 wartime documents and memoranda in London, Belfast, and Dublin. 13 In this large and heavily detailed volume, he examines the decision-making of the dominant figures from the governments of Eire, Britain, and Northern Ireland. Throughout the book he emphasizes the vital role that the partition of Northern Ireland played, which was not only a legacy of Ireland s relationship to Britain but also representative of the longdisagreements between the two nations. Fisk begins his work with the British turning over Irish ports in 1938, an issue that plagued the two nations for the remainder the war as Britain desperately sought to use them. From there the book is organized chronologically, giving a political play-by-play account surrounding Ireland and the Second World War. Each chapter discusses major issues that developed throughout the war, such as Britain s offer to end partition in 1940 if Ireland entered the war, or Germany s Operation Green, that involved an amphibious landing in Ireland, as well as the fears Ireland had of a British invasion. 14 At each stage of the war, Fisk highlights the personal characteristics of the major leaders involved, such as Eamon de Valera or Winston Churchill, and how they 12 Fisk, In Time of War, x. 13 Fisk, In Time of War, x. 14 Ibid.,

19 influenced the decision making for each country. For instance, de Valera could sympathize with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi s argument about the Sudetenland during the Munich conference because the Irish Free State felt that it should control the six counties of Northern Ireland since it not only held a large minority of Irish Catholics but also it was viewed as a rightful part of Eire. 15 Churchill s ambiguous attitude towards Irish neutrality in turn created confusion in Britain s policies because he would sometimes loathe de Valera and find Irish neutrality as incomprehensible, while at other times he would admire the Irish effort. Fisk concludes the book by summarizing the price Ireland paid for its policy of neutrality and with a brief hypothetical explanation on what could have happened if Ireland had chosen to join the Allies. According to Fisk, if Ireland opened its ports to Britain as an ally, then the war in the Atlantic could have ended sooner, resulting in fewer deaths, and the invasion of Normandy might have taken place months before. He even hypothesizes that Russia might not have had time to reinvade Poland, which could have dramatically changed post-war Europe. 16 Fisk is not the only historian to conjecture at what could have happened, but his is by far the most optimistic interpretation. Others believe that Germany would have invaded Ireland if she joined the Allies. 17 Regardless of what could have happened if Ireland changed its policy, Fisk outlines the consequences of the policy Ireland pursued. After the war, Ireland was denied acceptance to the United Nations until 1955 because of its neutrality, and as a result of 15 Ibid., Fisk, In Time of War, Tony Gray, The Lost Years: The Emergency in Ireland, (London: Warner, 1998),

20 the extreme censorship in Ireland a lot of the Nazi atrocities, including the Holocaust, were difficult for the Irish to comprehend. The most lasting consequence for Anglo-Irish relations in Second World War, Fisk argues, was to make partition more fixed. Both the Dublin and Belfast Governments used the war, Fisk concludes, the first to assert Eire s sovereignty, the second to secure further Northern Ireland s place within the United Kingdom 18 Around the same time as Robert Fisk s book was published, T. Ryle Dwyer wrote a diplomatic history of Ireland during World War II, Irish Neutrality and the USA (1977). 19 Dwyer was the first historian to focus primarily on the diplomatic interactions between Ireland and the United States, whereas Fisk gave more of a comprehensive overview of Ireland s political history during the war, emphasizing Anglo-Irish relations. Both are similar in methodology; Dwyer concentrates on the U.S. Ambassador to Ireland, David Gray, and his interactions with Ireland during the war. Dwyer argues that Ireland played a prominent role in the diplomacy of World War II even though it was a small island of barely three million people, and that Eire s neutrality cannot be understood without looking at its interactions with the United States. Claiming that, during the Second World War the Irish-American influence on United States politics played a very important role in shaping both British and American policy towards Ireland. 20 Dwyer argues that without the support of Irish-Americans, Washington could 18 Fisk, In Time of War, Dwyer, Irish Neutrality and the USA, (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Inc., 1977). 20 Ibid.,

21 not go to war until the attack on Pearl Harbor. 21 These Americans shared the deep-rooted anti-british feelings of Eire, and as Dublin worked for Irish-American support of neutrality, Washington was trying to sway the Irish government and the population at large to join the war effort. Throughout his book, Dwyer articulates the complexities of diplomacy and the relationship between the two nations. Another major focus of Dwyer s study is David Gray and his impact on U.S.-Irish and Irish-Allied relations. Dwyer s examination of Gray paints a very negative picture of the diplomat, who Dwyer sees as not only misunderstanding de Valera and Ireland s neutrality but also unreasonably critical. Dwyer argues that Gray probably received his appointment only because of his family ties to the President. As ambassador to Ireland, Gray adamantly pushed for the Irish to join the war, or at the very least allow the British to use their key ports. Gray saw Irish involvement as critical to the British war effort and defeating the Third Reich. In Dwyer s interpretation, Gray s views on Irish neutrality proved his inadequacies as the U.S. representative to Eire because he could not comprehend the Irish perspective and their relationship to Great Britain. Throughout the book Dwyer quotes Gray s absurd and unreasonable statements, such as saying, thank God!, after Pearl Harbor because the United States would finally have the Irish- American support necessary to formally enter the war. 22 Many historians who have built on this historiography of the Emergency, such as John P. Duggan, agree with and cite 21 Ibid., Dwyer, Irish Neutrality and the U.S.A.,

22 Dwyer s interpretations on the unhelpful attributes of the American diplomat. 23 Nevertheless, Dwyer highlights the key diplomatic relationships of Neutral Eire with the United States and the differing opinions, or perhaps misunderstandings, which critics of Irish neutrality, including Gray, held. 24 Shortly after T. Ryle Dwyer and Robert Fisk s political histories, John P. Duggan s diplomatic history published Neutral Ireland and the Third Reich, contributing to the historiography by focusing on Ireland s relationship with the Third Reich. The principal sources for his work are the official reports of the German Ambassador, Eduard Hempel, which had never previously been used. 25 Duggan gives a very positive portrayal of the German minister, whose main task once the war was underway was to keep Ireland neutral. Duggan begins by outlining the background of German-Irish relations, noting that Ireland was nothing more than a backwater on the periphery as far as Hitler was concerned; however, it came to be relevant after it was clear that Britain was willing to go to war with Germany because of Eire s close proximity to the United Kingdom. 26 Throughout the war, Duggan highlights key issues that Hempel faced as the minister to Ireland during World War II. Hempel had to attempt to reconcile Berlin s negative views of de Valera, which were outdated stereotypes dating to the Irish Civil War, while pursuing the Fuhrer s agenda that could potentially alarm and anger the Irish government. For instance, Hitler sought to contact members of the IRA, an illegal 23 John P. Duggan, Neutral Ireland and the Third Reich, (Gill and Macmillan: Dublin, 1985). 24 Dwyer, Irish Neutrality and the USA. 25 Duggan, Neutral Ireland and the Third Reich, x. 26 Ibid., 7. 16

23 organization in Ireland, in order to obtain secret information and help sabotage the British war efforts. Hempel also relayed the Reich s concerns to the Irish government, including prisoners of war or German spies, like Herman Goertz, an Abwehr spy who parachuted into County Meath in May of Overall, Duggan s analysis depicts how complicated a policy of neutrality can be, especially in interactions with belligerents. Eire had to appease British fears, to allay German suspicions and to keep down internal trouble, which meant that de Valera had to tread warily. 27 Despite all the complexities, Duggan argues that de Valera was successful in his neutrality, and the German Minister along with the British Ambassador Maffey helped him to succeed, even if he was more sympathetic towards the Allies. To Duggan, in international law the necessary attitude (of neutrality) was not incompatible with sympathy for one belligerent and antipathy towards another. 28 In contrast, Trevor Salmon argues against this interpretation of Eire s neutrality in his study, Unneutral Ireland: An Ambivalent and Unique Security Policy, published in Salmon s book doesn t focus specifically on Ireland during World War Two, but it is an important part of the historiography because his argument has been repeatedly cited. Salmon looks at Ireland s neutral background from the inception of the Irish Free State in 1922 until the 1980s, arguing that Ireland has never had a truly neutral foreign policy. He contends that Ireland has never conformed to the standard rules of neutrality by comparing it with other nations such as Switzerland and Austria. According 27 Duggan, Neutral Ireland and the Third Reich, Ibid., Trevor Salmon, Unneutral Ireland: An Ambivalent and Unique Security Policy, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989). 17

24 to Salmon, Ireland continuously fails during critical moments, like the Second World War, to act neutral. In Salmon s view, Ireland s close relationship with belligerent powers, especially Great Britain, made her benevolent towards the Allies, and therefore not neutral. Historians who have written on the Emergency after Salmon s critique, such as Donal O Drisceoil, demonstrate his influence through statements like, Ireland would be more accurately described as non-belligerent, rather than neutral. 30 Contradicting Salmon s interpretation of Irish neutrality is Jerrold Packard s study, Neither Friend nor Foe: The European Neutrals in the Second World War. He also takes a comparative approach to show how the five European neutral nations (Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, Portugal, and Ireland) had to act strategically towards the belligerents in order to secure their neutrality, something he felt de Valera did successfully. Packard thus places Ireland within the context of other European neutrals. He aims to look at how these countries reacted to and eventually overcame the enormous pressures from the belligerents, what the consequences of their neutrality were, how their people lived on the edge of a maelstrom that threatened at any moment to spill over their borders. 31 Packard briefly outlines Ireland s contentious history with Great Britain and the political issues that Ireland faced during the Second World War, while also touching on how the war impacted the people within Ireland. For instance, he emphasizes the main issues of partition and American involvement in the war, while also describing the 30 O Drisceoil, Censorship in Ireland, Packard, Neither Friend nor Foe, ix. 18

25 problems with shortages and Irish censorship. 32 Although Packard examines the common issues faced by the European neutrals during the war, on several occasions he notes how Ireland was a special case. Ireland was the only nation that had a substantial risk of being invaded by both the Axis and Allies, and where almost the entire population wanted to see Hitler defeated in the war, but for multiple reasons they didn t feel the need to be involved. Where Packard s analysis of neutral Ireland differs from the works of Dwyer and Duggan is in his skepticism of the overall success of de Valera s policies. He views Irish neutrality as unforgivable for moral reasons and argues that it kept a barrier of distrust between Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Great Britain. 33 The comparative approach of Packard s study helps put Ireland and its policies into the larger framework of European countries suffering a similar situation during this time of turmoil. Through the early 1990s, the historiography of Ireland during World War II retained primarily a diplomatic and political focus. As more archives and documents became available on subjects such as the inner workings of British as well as Irish intelligence and military campaigns, historical understandings and interpretations also expanded. In the last fifteen years the historiography of Ireland during the war has shifted away from an emphasis on international diplomacy towards the social and cultural impacts of the war on Ireland. Historians have more comprehensively examined the internal repercussions that the war had on Ireland and its population at large. For instance, historians have begun to assess the significance that censorship had on the Irish population. Censorship was nothing new to the young nation, usually with the goal of 32 Ibid., Packard, Neither Friend nor Foe,

26 portraying a morally wholesome, nationalistic picture of Eire and her history. However, with the outbreak of war, the state extended these censorship policies to regulate moral as well as political messages in order to maintain the stability of the nation. 34 With Censorship in Ireland : Neutrality, Politics, and Society, Donal O Drisceoil became the first historian to analyze Ireland s extensive censorship policies and how they influenced Ireland s political culture and emotional climate during the war. 35 From the Irish Free State s inception, censorship became an important mechanism of control a measure designated, in its various manifestations, to maintain the security of the states and protect the (narrowly defined) morals and culture of the nation. 36 Donal O Drisceoil outlines the background of Ireland s extensive censorship prior to the war and then analyzes their strict policy by each genre, such as film, newspapers, and literature. He places these policies within the broader context of the Second World War. O Drisceoil agrees with almost all other historians that neutrality was Ireland s most practical option, for reasons related to Anglo-Irish relations as well as the fact that they could not defend themselves militarily. However, he adds a new spin to the historiography by arguing that censorship was the backbone to Ireland s neutrality. Censorship worked as an internal security measure, and it was crucial for the Irish government in order to keep the public supportive of neutrality and prevent belligerents from an excuse to invade O Drisceoil, Censorship in Ireland, Ibid. 36 Ibid.,1. 37 Ibid. 20

27 By dividing his chapters by genre, the thoroughness of Irish censorship and the key actors involved under the Emergency Powers Act of 1939 becomes clear. 38 This legislation allowed the Irish government to maintain neutrality by giving them more authority, including control over the Irish economy and censorship. When looking at film and censorship, he uses examples such as the government banning Charlie Chaplin s film, The Great Dictator (1940), because Chaplin pokes fun at Adolf Hitler and his oppressive policies. If this perspective of Hitler was shown, it could have meant riots and bloodshed throughout the country according to Frank Aiken, the Minister of Coordination of Defensive Measures. 39 The banning of this film is just one of the ironies that O Drisceoil constantly refers to. The Irish were careful to censor anything that might be interpreted as biased towards the Allies or the Axis powers, while in reality the government was clearly in favor of the Allies. 40 He concludes by illuminating the impacts that the censors had and how the media and public responded after the war when censors were lifted. For instance, Irish packed cinemas where previously banned newsreels were playing or the Irish Times editor s, R.M. Smyllie, printed an article, They Can Be Published Now, with graphic details and images of the war. 41 One of the negative consequences of Eire s censorship was that the images and incidences from places like Katyn, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were difficult for the Irish public to digest and accept after enduring the war innocently ignorant of its major atrocities O Drisceoil, Censorship in Ireland, O Drisceoil, Censorship in Ireland, Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

28 Although the Irish public was aware of the war, and felt at least some of its repercussions, many historians emphasize Ireland s real isolation from the war, like Dublin s bright lights compared to the blackouts in Northern Ireland and Britain. 43 Building on the work of Donal O Drisceoil, Robert Cole s book, Propaganda, Censorship and Irish Neutrality in the Second World War, extended the scope of historical research on Irish censorship by focusing on the international elements of propaganda within Ireland and the functions of the censors during the Emergency. Cole s study also added a new perspective by placing it within the context of expanding mass communications in this era and the governmental powers of persuasion. Cole focuses on the key initiators behind the propaganda machines of the belligerents, especially Great Britain and the United States. Both the Allies and the Axis had organized propaganda regimens within Ireland to promote their interests in the war, while Irish censors and their own government-initiated propaganda labored to portray unbiased accounts and keep the public in support of neutrality. According to Cole, the United States and Great Britain made larger efforts to sway Irish opinion because they had a much greater interest in changing Irish opinion, whereas Germany realized their best hope was keeping Ireland neutral. 44 In this analysis, Cole focuses on the main actors, such as the British Ministry of Information and the American Office of War Information, and how they attempted to shift Irish opinion against neutrality. He looks at various elements outside of Ireland that 43 Cole, Propaganda, Censorship and Irish Neutrality in the Second World War (Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2006); Tony Gray, The Lost Years: The Emergency in Ireland, (Boston: Little, Brown Book Group, 1997). 44 Cole, Propaganda, Censorship, and Irish Neutrality in the Second World War. 22

29 played into the international propaganda efforts, including the important opinion of the Irish-American population who supported Irish neutrality until Pearl Harbor and voiced their opinions through various newspapers such as the Gaelic American. 45 Some of the most prominent channels of influence that the Allies had in Ireland were through British radio broadcasts as well as the illegal distribution of leaflets. Through this extensive research on propaganda networks in Ireland, Cole is able to conclude that de Valera and Eire s censorship won the war of words. 46 Nonetheless, he argues that the Allies didn t lose because the Irish government was very helpful in relaying information to the United States and Britain, and hundreds of thousands Irishmen still helped the Allied war effort, either through working at munitions factories in Britain or even volunteering for the British military. 47 Moving away from the propaganda machines of Eire and the Allies, Eunan O Halpin researches the intelligence networks of the British within Ireland. His book, Spying on Ireland: British Intelligence and Irish Neutrality During the Second World War, was not possible until very recently, when highly confidential sources became available for historical scholarship in the British National Archives, such as documents pertaining to the Security Service (MI5) or the Records of Special Operations Executive (SOE). O Halpin s study examines British dealings with Ireland in the wider context of the challenges facing British intelligence, as well as comparing it to Allied relations with 45 Cole, Propaganda, Censorship, and Irish Neutrality in the Second World War, Ibid., Ibid.,

30 other neutral nations. 48 Interestingly, O Halpin points out that the British had very little knowledge on Ireland, there having been an absence of British diplomatic presence since the formation of the Irish Free State in Throughout the book, O Halpin effectively articulates the changes and developments in British Irish intelligence as the war progressed and concerns were altered. During the phony war of , Irish neutrality was more of an irritant than a real problem, but once Germany took over nations like France and Norway, Ireland was seen as a mortal security threat for Great Britain. Germany have could easily defeat Ireland militarily, placing them only a step away from the England. 50 The tensest times for Allied intelligence was with a heavy presence of American troops in Ulster and the effort to preserve secrecy leading up to Operation Overlord. Other historians have emphasized this issue when covering the American Note (the U.S. demand that Eire expel the German and Japanese delegations from Dublin), but O Halpin explains it from a British intelligence perspective. However, as unnerving as neutral Eire was to Great Britain throughout the war, O Halpin shows how they became extremely useful for relaying information to the Allies. O Halpin concludes that, intelligence activities concerning Ireland during the Second World War belong to different points on a spectrum running from what became an almost full alliance to aggressive black 48 O Halpin, Spying on Ireland, x. 49 Ibid., Ibid.,

31 propaganda against Irish neutrality. 51 Ultimately, the cooperation between Dublin, London, and Belfast was a necessary cornerstone in the Allied war effort. Distinguishing herself from other historians who have studied Ireland and the Second World War, Clair Wills examines the Irish cultural experience during the war in That Neutral Island: A Cultural History of Ireland during the Second World War. Wills utilizes works from the community of poets, playwrights, writers, and dramatists throughout her book and shows how their works represent the larger sentiments of the Irish during World War II and their overall benevolence towards the Allies. 52 The common view on Ireland is that it was an isolated place during the war, but her argument shows how the war touched the majority of the Irish people. Wills points out that the Irish were involved through volunteering, migrant work, spying, smuggling, unemployment, shortages, censorship, defence: there was no home front in Ireland, but the country was nonetheless shaped by war. 53 She begins her study by outlining the major issues affecting Irish society at large, specifically its dilemma between modernization and Eire s traditional lifestyles along with its bitter sentiments towards the British. Each chapter recognizes a major issue that Ireland faced during the war and dissects the public s reactions to it. For instance, Chapter 6, War in the Air, overviews the air raids of the Luftwaffe and the impacts they had on the British Isles. Wills shows how contemporary literature represented the Irish role in this during the war, like Vincent Carroll s play, The Strings are False: A Drama 51 O Halpin, Spying on Ireland, Wills, That Neutral Island. 53 Ibid.,

32 of Clydeside Air Raids. This play emphasizes the humanitarian concerns of the Irish fire brigades in their response to bombings in Belfast. 54 Apart from the depictions in popular culture, Wills cites an abundance of various Irish men and women s experiences, detailing how the Irish were in direct contact with the wartime brutalities: from the dozens of accounts reminiscing about bodies that washed up on the west coast of Ireland during the Battle of the Atlantic to the presence of British and American troops on leave in Eire. 55 Although one consequence of Ireland s neutrality was the expansion of local theatres and cultural organizations, That Neutral Island concludes with a discussion on paying for neutrality. Wills outlines many of the negative consequences of Ireland s neutrality. The war stimulated the vanished generation : young people leaving Ireland for better economies and livelihoods in places like Britain, something that has been a concern of the Irish since before independence. 56 Ireland was condemned by the Allies for not contributing, de Valera was ridiculed for paying condolences to the German minister after Hitler s death, and there was an overall distrust throughout the Irish population of the horrific images of the war that were suddenly shown, a repercussion of censorship that has been noted by historians such as Cole and O Driscioel. 57 Ultimately, Clair Wills cultural study combined with the historical studies of Irish politics, intelligence, or censorship, shed light on the overarching themes of the Irish wartime experience. 54 Wills, That Neutral Island, Ibid., Ibid., Ibid. 26

33 From these historians analysis one can see how the war impacted Eire and her people, yet Richard Doherty s multiple studies even further this historical understanding of Ireland during the Second World War by exploring the Irish who joined the British military. While Irish involvement in the Allied forces during the Second World War was briefly acknowledged by almost all of the historians discussed here, Doherty highlights how prevalent and significant the Irish were in the Allied war effort. Whether it was the Irish men and women working in munitions factories in England or the Irish generals in command during the Second World War, Doherty argues that the Irish played a very prominent role. He has written several books regarding the Irish and the Second World War, many of which build upon each other, including: Clear the Way! A History of the 38 th Brigade (1993), Irish Men and Women in the Second World War (1999), Irish Volunteers in the Second World War (2002), Ireland s Generals in the Second World War (2004), and In the Ranks of Death: The Irish in the Second World War (2010). 58 Doherty is primarily a military historian, and these works delve into the roles that Irishmen played throughout World War Two. He looks at the Irish experience as military commanders, as soldiers in key battles, as well as soldiers fighting in the air, at sea, on land, and even Irish immigrant workers in Great Britain. The number of Irish men and women who served with the British forces during World War II fluctuate between various Irish estimates, British estimates, and official documents. According to 58 Richard Doherty, Clear the Way! A History of the 38 th Brigade (Irish Academic Press, 1993); Richard Doherty, Irish Men and Women in the Second World War (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1999); Richard Doherty, Irish Volunteers in the Second World War (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2002); Richard Doherty, Ireland s Generals in the Second World War (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2004); Richard Doherty, In the Ranks of Death: The Irish in the Second World War (South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Military, 2010). 27